High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circurhstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Nlandamus, considering the Exceeding Jurisdiction, on the Part of respondent No.2 to the writ Petition, Passing the gestures to demolish the structure, Made on H. No. 8-5-38/1, Sanjay Nagar, Godavari Khani, Pedapalli District -505209 as Uncalled, Un Justifiable and not in consonance with Doctrine of Principles of Natural Justice, consequentially, direct the respondent No.2, not to demolish the structure tMade on H. No. . 8-5-38/1, Sanjay Nagar, Godavari Khani, Pedapalli District -505209 ( as review Petition is Pending) '- , t': ,,,r .:'.-. . ,j,.,:,,., lA NO: 1 OF:t025 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2, not to demolish the structure [Vlade on H. No. 8-5-38/1, Sanjay Nagar, Godavari Khani, Pedapalli District -505209, without following due Process of law Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJESH RAAMASWAMY BAVANDLAPELLI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K. SIDDDHARTH REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER 'I ':'.: !.'1 -ri.'i 4 o HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY PETITIO 4602 0E ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in trying to interfere with his possession and threatening to demolish the structures raised by him in the subject property bearing H.No.8-5 -3811, Sanjay Nagar, Gadavari Khani, Pedapalli District, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Ramasw&ffiy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Siddharth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2 Municipality; and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he made unauthorized construction in house bearing municipal No.2l-L-7012 in Survey No.699, situated at Chandrababu Cotony and Janagama Shivar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District. That one Mr D.V. Chaithanya submitted representation dated 23.09.2024 to respondent No.2 complaining that the petitioner made unauthorized construction in the above said premises. lt is submitted that Mr. D.V. Chaithanya is not a resident of the colony where the petitioner resides. Mr. D.1/. Chaithanya filed W.P. No-30489 of 2024 before this Court seeking to take action against the petitioner for 2 raising unauthorized structures in the subject property. Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 05.11.2024 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation as to why the unauthoriz:ed structures raised by him in the subject property should not be removed; the petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 11.11 .2024 to the said srhow cause notice. Pursuant thereto, speaking order dated

19.11 .202.1 was passed directing the petitioner to remove the unauthoriz:ed construction in the subject property within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred statutory appeal challenging the speaking order dated 19.11.2024 passed by respondent No.2 beftrre the Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Warangal and the same was dismissed vide proceedings in Roc. No.674120241A3 dated 02.01.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed review petition No.189 of 2025 before respondent No.l challenging the dismissal order dated 02.01 .2025 passed in the statutory appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before the review pei:ition has been heard by respondent No.l, respondent No.2 is ,,/-; 5 making attempts to demolish the structures raised by him in the subject property

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of review under Section 252(2) of the Telangana Municipalities Act,20t9. Thus, the action of respondent No.2 in trying to demolish the structures raised by the petitioner in the subject property t \ during the pendency of the review petition is arbitrary and unjust.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation prayed this Court that directions may be issued to respondent No.l to pass orders in the review petition No.189 of 2025 filed by the petitjoner within a reasonable period of time.

7. tn the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.l to dispose of the review petition No.189 of 2025 fiIed by the petitioner chaltenging the dismissal order dated 02.01.2025 passed in the statutory appeal, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending disposal of the said review petition, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by both the parties in respect of '\ /' ,r' 4 :\ In the structu;:es raised by the petitioner in the subject property. There shall be no orde;: as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ perition stand closed. To, /TRUE COPYII r REGISTRAR E ION OFFICER n / rban Development Municipal administration a uildings, Tank Bund, T.S.,H 1 The Principle Secretary Deparlment Secretariat B Peddapally District -505209

2. The Oommissioner, Ramagundam Municipal corporation, Ramagudam, 3. One CC to SRl. RAJESH RAAMASWAIMY BAVANDLAPELLI ,Advocate 4. Two tlCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVEI-OPIVENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. One CC to SRl. K. SIDDARTH REDDY, SC FOR IVIUNICIPALITYIOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies loPUCl : d BM ,BS _l Ii :: ! :r i! i i t; I . HIGH GOURT DATED:01 10512025 \ \ 'ihiu i t^t 6 t tl 5',{IiR 2026 Z * c * ORDER WP.No.14602 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS l I I t1 i J i i II :J i l q